SC PIO: Mamasapano trial transfer has been with OCA, not OCJ
In this Thursday, Jan. 29, 2015 file photo, the Philippine National Police Special Action Forces carry the flag-draped coffins of their comrades upon arrival from Maguindanao in souhern Philippines at Villamor Air Base in Pasay, Philippines. AP/Bullit Marquez, File photo
MANILA, Philippines — The ball of Mamasapano court transfer has been with the Office of the Court Administrator since February last year, not with the Office of the Chief Justice, a report from the Supreme Court Public Information Office showed.
According to the SC PIO, the request for Mamasapano trial transfer has reached the SC en banc only on Thursday, 2:00 p.m., hours after the DOJ's report that the SC has yet to act on the request even a year later made headlines.
On Friday, SC Spokesperson Ted Te released a timeline of the Department of Justice's request to transfer the venue of the Mamasapano hearings from a Cotabato court to a Metro Manila court.
READ: A year later, SC yet to decide on Mamasapano trial transfer
Te said that the Office of the Chief Justice received the letter on January 19.
"The OCJ wrote an endorsement letter dated Feb. 9, 2017, which was sent to the Court Administrator [Midas Marquez] on Feb. 13, 2017, and stamped received by the Office of the Court Administrator on Feb. 14, 2017," Te added.
The OCA referred the matter to its Legal Office on March 3, 2017.
Almost 10 months later, the Court Administrator sent a recommendation dated Jan. 15, 2017 to the Clark of Court En Banc on Jan. 25, 2018.
Following this, "the matter will be raffled to a member in charge will then make a recommendation to the Court En Banc," Te said.
Court procedure
This was following the court rules that the Court Administrator is tasked with "[a]ction on other matters that the Court or the Chief Justice may assign relative to the administrative supervision of lower courts."
The OCA's Legal Office, meanwhile, is mandated to "[take] appropriate action on applications for transfer of venue of cases."
Marquez, sought for comment, said in a text message to reporters: "We have to follow usual court procedure where we have to get comments on the judge and other parties concerned."
"Them the Legal Office will evaluate. That can take time, more so since the judge and parties are in Mindanao," Marquez added.
READ: SolGen wants Aquino, others charged with reckless imprudence for Mamasapano
Different from Maute transfer request
Sereno has been accused by lawyer Larry Gadon of sitting on a similar court request transfer. Gadon said that Sereno caused the delay of transfer of the Maute trial cases.
But the SC PIO was quick to point out that the Mamasapano trial request transfer is different from the Maute case transfer since the prior does not involve "ongoing hostilities."
"In the Maute request, the OCJ directly endorsed this to the Court En Banc without referring it to the OCA because of the ongoing violence in Marawi City and the need to take immediate action," the SC PIO said.
"In the request for transfer of venue in the Mamasapano incident, the OCJ followed the standard procedure of referring to the OCA because there were no ongoing hostilities," Te added.
Marquez has often sat as a resource speaker in the said hearings at the House of Representatives Committee on Justice.
READ: Sereno camp: No intentional delay on Maute transfer request
- Latest
- Trending
